Section 77A of Registration Act unconstitutional; Sub-Registrar cannot cancel fraudulent deeds, civil court remedy available.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 02.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Chitra ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Joint No.1 Sub Registrar, Madurai South, Madurai, Madurai District.

3. Selvakumar ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry into the fraudulent registration of Sale Deed in Document No.8496 of 2020 dated 17.11.2020 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, and take appropriate action in accordance with law, including initiation of proceedings for cancellation/impounding of the said document, by considering petitioner representation dated 11.02.2026, within the stipulated time fixed by this Honble Court and pass any other orders which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthamilventhan For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate ORDER The writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents

1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry into the fraudulent registration of the Sale Deed in Document No.8496 of 2020 dated 17.11.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and take appropriate action in accordance with law, including initiation of proceedings for cancellation/impounding of the said document, by considering the petitioner's representation dated

11.02.2026.

2. Heard Mr.K.Muthamil Venthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Gangatharan, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question in S.Nos.111/3 and 113/1, totaling 5 cents, originally belonged to one Andi Ambalam, who purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1970. The said Andi Ambalam died intestate leaving behind his three sons namely Periyakaruppan, Palsamy, and Veeranan. However, one of the sons, Veeranan, executed a document dated 17.11.2020, fraudulently claiming that he alone is the legal heir.

4. The petitioner is the wife of Muthuraja, who is the son of Periyakaruppan. Therefore, since all three sons and their legal heirs have title to the property, the document executed by Veeranan is a sham and nominal. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. It can be seen that the entire claim of the petitioner cannot now be considered by the Sub Registrar in view of the judgment of this Court in Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and Others (2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6154) striking down the Section 77 A of the Act as unconstitutional. If the petitioner also asked a share, it will be open for the petitioner to deal with their share ignoring the above deed. It will also be open for the petitioner to question the said deed in the manner known to law or to assert the title in respect of the portion of the property by approaching the appropriate Civil Court.

6. With the aforesaid liberty kept open to the petitioner, the prayer in the writ petition can no more be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.